this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
261 points (95.5% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

949 readers
568 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

It actually also cannot be countered period. We've been on damage control for years. Every effort now will save lives later but there is no avoiding the harm that has been done.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

~~reigning in~~

ENDING it. "reigning it in" will just push the problem down the line (and back into just minorities' hands).

meaning we just get a new deal all over again and nothing fundamentally changes.

[–] i_ben_fine@lemmy.one 2 points 1 month ago

We should demand the death penalty for billionaires. They'll counter-offer us if we're loud enough.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Yes let's get rid of "corporate capitalism" and make way for all of the other kinds

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is uniquely difficult to put a handle on, but the non capitalist superpowers are chugging gas just the same. This isn't a problem of capitalism, but greed, and every drop denies blame for the flood.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Its too late, another man falls down.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is never a helpful word to use in any context. Like all "isms", it can be reduced practically to the supremacy of capital, corporatism, oligarchism, and market corruption to maximize the supremacy.

Unlike Adam Smith's origin of free and fair markets, the problem with the practical modern definition is the protection of incumbent oligarchy.

Global warming can be solved through markets. Carbon taxes are a market mechanism. Green energy is the cheapest energy and the best energy investment. When weapons and oil oligarchs own the government and media, they can make you prioritize war, energy dominance, transgender ickyness, and Israel's "right to exist" as a higher priority than human sustainability.

This "structural communism for the rich" gets called capitalism by all sides, even when it is far removed from free market competition.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Thing is that India and China will still screw us. Right now India, China, and the US are probably the worst places.

[–] paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Check out the CO2 emissions per capita! It is to easy blaming China and India. And China is switching to solar faster than the Western nations.

https://aqalgroup.com/2022-worldwide-ghg-emissions/

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

If we just had more people, that would get the per capita numbers down and the problem would be solved!

Wait...

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Per capita isn't really important in this case. Overall output is. The planet doesn't care if it's getting less per capita from one place or another.

Then, the other thing is that your graph is just CO2. There are many other gasses that are literally thousands of times worse than CO2.

[–] paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah the planet does not care at all. Neither the overall output or the per capita. We do.

Problem is there is no reducing the overall output without solving the imbalance between developed countries and undeveloped countries (imbalance of the per capita emisions). Undeveloped countries will always try to achieve the same standard of living as the developed ones. And who are we to blame them?

And I didn’t see real efforts of the developed countries to reduce their emissions fast enough. Why should the others? China has a plan at least.

But humans be humans, so brace yourself it’s going to be hot.

Or cold for the Europeans if the Golfstrom is really collapsing.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

China is shilling out solar because its making them money. Overhead satellite stuff shows they're throwing out loads of harmful emissions that are terrible for global warming.

[–] ppue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Per capita isn't really important in this case. Overall output is. The planet doesn't care if it's getting less per capita from one place or another.

I don't see any value in that approach except for finger pointing and doomer posting.

Then, the other thing is that your graph is just CO2.

No, it is CO2eq.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That was a good argument before the CCP started pressuring people to have 3 children. They want to actively increase their population through means other than immigration.